ISAS Working Papers No. 220 – 15 January 2016 Institute of South Asian Studies National University of Singapore 29 Heng Mui Keng Terrace #08-06 (Block B) Singapore 119620 Tel: (65) 6516 4239 Fax: (65) 6776 7505 www.isas.nus.edu.sg http://southasiandiaspora.org From Congress-system to Non-hegemonic Multi-party Competition: Politics in Maharashtra The paper reviews the changing nature of politics in the state of Maharashtra – an important subnational state in India. Politics in the state underwent a shift in 1978 and later again in 1990s. The present moment (2014) may be seen as the third shift firmly pushing the state out of the grips of Congress dominance. State politics has witnessed not only the decline of the Congress and a somewhat stable coalitional competition during the 2000s, it has also witnessed a decoupling of structures of economic power and structures of political domination. This development has led to the main ruling community in the state, the Marathas, being restless. Thus, social, political and economic factors have coincided in producing a juncture of political competitiveness that fails to produce well-being in the larger sense. While discussing the political shifts, the paper would also connect with the nature of state’s economy. It will be argued that Maharashtra’s political economy has witnessed certain distortions during the past decade (or more) and that they are closely connected with the political changes in the state. The assessment of competitive politics and political economy would not only be relevant for understanding the politics of Maharashtra, but it should be instructive in making sense of the overall situation of ‘more and more competition for less and less’ that characterises India’s democratic politics of the 1990s and the early 21st Century. Suhas Palshikar1 Introduction Though India’s federation has created uniform structure of government across the subnational units created by the Constitution and called the ‘states’, the politics of states always throws up diverse and unique patterns. This development was somewhat overshadowed in the initial period after independence because of the continued dominance of Congress party in most states. But even within the larger framework of that single party dominance, states developed very different political characteristics flowing from the local leadership patterns, social configurations peculiar to each state and political history of the states or regions (Yadav-Palshikar; 2008). Therefore, looking into the patterns of power sharing and political economy of the states is an important way to understand India’s political dynamics. Long ago, Myron Weiner realized this when he embarked on a survey of state level political processes (Weiner: 1968). Since the late eighties, the salience of state as the unit at which politics shapes became more pronounced as a result of the decline of Congress and emergence of the post-congress polity. On the one hand, this development was accompanied by a ‘democratic upsurge’ (Yadav: 1996) which expressed itself strongly at the state level. This upsurge made state level politics even more relevant in the analysis of India’s politics. On the other hand, new patterns of electoral competition emerged during the nineties. These were the outcomes of the fall of Congress as a pole around which most of the competitive politics would traditionally get woven. Even if one were to imagine a post-congress polity as ‘non-congressism’ reborn, the actual patterns of competition varied from state to state. The politics of coalitions could configure only at the state level and thus, at one point of time, ‘multiple bipolarities’ (Sridharan: 2002) evolved. Subsequently, different patterns of multi-polar competition too emerged (as in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and more recently Andhra Pradesh and Telangana). In most of these 1 Dr Suhas Palshikar of the Department of Politics & Public Administration at Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune (India) can be contacted at [email protected]. The author, not ISAS, is responsible for the facts cited and opinions expressed in this paper. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the ISAS Annual Conference held in Singapore in November 2014. 2 developments of the post-Indira-Rajiv era, states predominated as peculiar articulations of the new power grid and also became the basic unit of analysis through which one could make sense of the larger all-India patterns of democratic competition. Elsewhere, Yogendra Yadav and I have argued about the renewed importance and rise of state as the theatre of politics that helps us make sense of politics in the post-congress era (Yadav and Palshikar: 2003 and 2008). This paper proceeds from that understanding about the importance of state level political processes and attempts to look at the politics in Maharashtra as an instance of this development. While academic analyses of state level political processes have already emerged both as single-state studies and as overarching framework, there have also been various political practices that attempt to superimpose an all-India framework on the actual practice of politics. In this sense, we find India’s politics continuously vacillating between these two tendencies: state level differentiation and ‘all-India’ patterns effecting homogenization of competitive politics.2 The famous attempts to remove the Congress party from power in the late sixties had state-specific expressions but the ambition happened to be of an all-India character. When Indira Gandhi developed her populist authoritarian model of politics, she sought to create an all-India framework of politics. These two developments had very different effects, one consolidating the state as theatre of politics and the other consolidating the all-India platform as the critical location where competitive politics unfolded. Similarly, the decade of nineties saw the ‘OBC3 politics’ throwing up many state specific patterns and at the same time, politics of Hindutva seeking to develop an all-India pattern. This duality of the nineties produced the rise of the all-India framework in and after the sixteenth parliamentary elections when Narendra Modi successfully shaped a decisively all-India framework of politics. One witnesses therefore the duality of state-specificity and recurrence of the ‘all-India’ 2 This dynamics of the ‘all-India’ — i.e. polity-wide — patterns and the subnational (state level) patterns) is a fascinating one in the Indian context and presumably in other large-size polities too. How the two shape each other and how the understanding of each level contributes to the enrichment of our understanding of the other is a separate subject. In the case of Maharashtra-India relationship, I have attempted to discuss this in my essay, Palshikar; 2014a) 3 The acronym OBC stands for ‘Other Backward Classes’ — sections of India’s society identified by the Backward Classes Commission as backward and needing affirmative action under the Constitutional provision pertaining to ‘socially and educationally backward classes’. This measure, known in Indian context as reservation policy, is adopted mainly to offset the effects of the iniquitous caste system and lower castes are included in the category of OBCs while the tribal sections are included in a separate category called Scheduled Tribes (STs) and the most downtrodden castes traditionally treated as untouchable are classified as Scheduled Castes (SCs). The term ‘OBC politics refers to the mobilization of the backward castes demanding fair treatment and fairs hare in power. This politics became critical to Indian democratic competition since the nineties. 3 in the present moment of India’s politics. Looking at the political dynamics of Maharashtra within this larger context is helpful for appreciating how Maharashtra represents the interface of state- specificity and the all-India patterns. First section of the paper gives an overview of the politics of Maharashtra before the nineties along with the main characteristics of the congress dominated politics in the state. In the second section, we discuss the change from Congress dominance to a bipolar coalition competition since the nineties. The third section discusses the long term trends in the political economy of the state and points to the recent political changes while addressing the question regarding the implications for political economy. History of Congress Dominance It may be worthwhile to begin with a brief sketch the social profile of the state since that would be relevant to the understanding of political mobilization and competitive politics of the state. Maharashtra is known for the political domination of the Maratha community. Among other things, this characteristic is rooted in the fact that around 30 percent of the state’s population can be identified as belonging to the ‘Maratha-Kunbi’ caste cluster. (Figures for caste or caste group population shares are only estimates partly derived from the data of 1931 Census and that except in case of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes ( ST), for no other caste or caste group there is official data available so far.) The Maratha preponderance is a somewhat extra-ordinary feature in the sense that in no state of India does any single caste community enjoy such numeric preponderance. The Maratha community is spread all over the state almost equally, having existence in all regions of the state. Mainly an agrarian community, the Marathas have now diversified themselves in many other occupations also. The other main social sections in the state are the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. The latter are concentrated in specific areas of the state such as the Thane-Nashik-Nandurbar belt in North Maharashtra and Yeotmal-Gadchiroli area of Vidarbh. Belonging to various tribal communities, the Scheduled Tribes (ST) do not have a combined political impact as social bloc, whereas, the historical struggle under the leadership of 4 Ambedkar has produced a significant political role by the Scheduled Castes of Maharashtra. SC population accounted for 10.2 % and ST population accounted for 8.9% in the 2001 census.